JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - The unsuccessful landlords aggrieved by the reversal order in House Rent Appeal No. 1 of 1991 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore dismissing the petition for eviction of the opposite party-tenants, have approached this Court. During pendency of the appeal, the original tenant Sk. Anwar Alli having died, his L.Rs. (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenants') have been substituted. 2. Landlord case is that the disputed premises happens to be a shop room bearing Municipal Holding No. 475-A in, Ward No. 9 and was let out to opposite-party tenants on a monthly rent basis. The rent was Rs. 8/- per month. Subsequently rent was enhanced to Rs. 45/- per month. The original tenant started defaulting payment of rent for which the proceeding under the Orissa House Rent Control Act was initiated. 3. That apart, the case of the landlord is that, the petitioner No. 6 is the owner of the premises in question and he is running his own shop in a rented house in Arta Kaviraj Road in a lane away from the shop in question which is on the main Motiganj Market and for his business purpose he wants to have his shop in the disputed premises. The tenant - opposite parties contested the case by putting forth a defence that they were not wilful defaulters and that the landlords did not bona fide want to occupy the premises in question. Besides this, the tenants also denied title of the landlord. 4. The House Rent Controller on considering the evidence adduced by the parties held that the opposite party-tenants were wilful defaulters and that the landlord wanted the premises for his bona fide personal use and thus allowed the petition and passed the order of eviction. In the appeal filed by the tenant-opposite parties the lower appellate Court reversed the finding on both Counts and dismissed the landlords' petition. The said order is challenged before this Court. 5. Mr. S. Mishra (2), learned senior counsel has taken the Court to the pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and judgment of both the Courts below. Though Mr. The said order is challenged before this Court. 5. Mr. S. Mishra (2), learned senior counsel has taken the Court to the pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and judgment of both the Courts below. Though Mr. Mishra has strenuously urged that the finding of the C.J.M. that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant is erroneous, yet on going through the reasons given by the C.J.M. we do not find it justifiable to disturb that finding while exercising the power under writ jurisdiction. The lower Court held the tenant a wilful defaulter because of the delayed payment tendered by the tenants and received by the landlords. The appellate Court reversed its finding holding that the tenant was not a wilful defaulter since the landlord at no point of time objected to such delayed payment. This proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rashik Lal and Others Vs. Shah Gokuldas. The same view has also been taken in the Division Bench case of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Sugyana Kumari Deo and others 7992 (II) OLR 150. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Mishra is not accepted. 6. So far as requirement for bona fide use is concerned, a lot of argument has been advanced from both sides. Mr. Mishra put great stress with reference to the decision of this Court that it is the landlord who is the best person to select and give option of his choice as to in what manner he requires the premises for use. Mr. Mukherji, on the other hand, while countering argument of Mr. Mishra put reliance on the facts that the evidence on record has borne out and also the finding by the Courts below is that the rented house under occupation of the landlords is in a much better condition and is a shop room with a collapsible shutter whereas, the disputed shop in question is an old dilapidated house having wooden shutter and with leakage of roof and is not suitable for carrying on business. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherji that during the pendency of the case the landlords sold away their other rooms close to this disputed shop which indicates that they did not bona fide need the premises for their own use. The landlords' intention is to evict the tenants at any cost. This factual aspect of Mr. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherji that during the pendency of the case the landlords sold away their other rooms close to this disputed shop which indicates that they did not bona fide need the premises for their own use. The landlords' intention is to evict the tenants at any cost. This factual aspect of Mr. Mukherji is countered by Mr. Mishra. Be that as it may, it is established from the materials that the landlords are having their electrical goods shop at a little distance in a rented house paying rent of Rs. 180/- per month which shop is situated in a lane namely, Arta Kaviraj Road whereas, it is admitted by the tenants that the present shop in question is situated on the main road. It is needless to point out that the comparative potentiality of having a shop room on the main road of the market is certainly more than the shop situated in a lane. Accepting for the present the contention of Mr. Mukherji is correct that the petitioners during the pendency of the case have sold his other shop rooms that itself would not be sufficient to establish that they do not require the shop room in question for their own bona fide use. If they are businessmen admittedly carrying on business and admittedly they are the owners of the shop in dispute, they are the best persons to know as to what extent the disputed premises is more advantageous from the view of its situation for the purpose of business. In the case of Neta Ram Vs. Jiwan Lal, the apex Court held as follows : "Before a landlord can obtain an order for ejectment of his tenant on ground of his requirement for reconstitution of a house, he must satisfy the Rent Controller about genuineness of his claim and this can only be established by looking at all the surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put to more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord and so on." The same view has also been taken in the case of Sreemati Radha Nayakani v. Konchada Narayan Murty and Ors. : 56 (1983) CUT 1. We therefore hold that the landlords have been able to prove the requirement of the premises for their bona fide use. 7. : 56 (1983) CUT 1. We therefore hold that the landlords have been able to prove the requirement of the premises for their bona fide use. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The lower appellate Court's judgment is set aside. The opposite party-tenants are hereby directed to give vacant possession of the premises to the landlords within four months from the date of this order failing which the landlords may seek eviction as per law. No cost. S. Chatterji, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed